Let's say someone is opposed to gay marriage. Their employer finds out. Should they be fired, even if this never came up on the job - say the employer found it during a facebook check.

In a right-to-work state, they certainly could be without recourse for the person fired. If an employer finds out that someone is racist, it's very likely they would be fired as well.

Quote

Should they be allowed to adopt? Should it weigh against them if they're attempting to adopt?

We take income into consideration, so why not? If someone was racist and it was well known or they made it known, it's likely they wouldn't be allowed to adopt either.

Quote

Should anti-gay-marriage groups be allowed to form on a university or high school campus with the same rights (and access to funding) as their opponents?

No, because it's hateful speech. You wouldn't let a racist or sexist organization form on a campus, how is this any different?

Quote

Should someone be allowed not to rent to an anti-gay-marriage person owing to their beliefs?

Abso-freakin-loutly. This is literally no different then calling someone out on being racist or sexist.

As a society, we're saying loud and clear that being discriminatory because of someone's sexual orientation is unacceptable. People have every right to say hateful things, but that doesn't prevent them from suffering the consequences for holding the belief.

In a right-to-work state, they certainly could be without recourse for the person fired. If an employer finds out that someone is racist, it's very likely they would be fired as well.

I'm not asking about the specific laws of right-to-work states. I'm asking about ethical and moral considerations - but really, the rest of your answers show where you're coming from.

So there you go. With the work question up in the air, it should be allowed to bar people from from adopting, legally unable to form groups on campus, be discriminated against in housing, owing to their beliefs about sexual behavior.

Quote

As a society, we're saying loud and clear that being intolerant because of someone's sexual orientation is unacceptable.

You're saying quite a few things loud and clear. Possibly more than you realize.

In a right-to-work state, they certainly could be without recourse for the person fired. If an employer finds out that someone is racist, it's very likely they would be fired as well.

I'm not asking about the specific laws of right-to-work states. I'm asking about ethical and moral considerations - but really, the rest of your answers show where you're coming from.

So there you go. With the work question up in the air, it should be allowed to bar people from from adopting, legally unable to form groups on campus, be discriminated against in housing, owing to their beliefs about sexual behavior.

This irony of this one line is amazing. Isn't that what you're actually defending?

Quote

Quote

As a society, we're saying loud and clear that being intolerant because of someone's sexual orientation is unacceptable.

You're saying quite a few things loud and clear. Possibly more than you realize.

Congrats on the ad hominem.

Yes, from a moral and ethical standpoint we should absolutely have consequences for hateful speech. I'd prefer societal consequences, which is what is going on with Chick-fil-a, but sometimes you need the extra oomph that formal government action provides. We needed it in the 1960s and, unfortunately, it looks like we need it again.

Your example is problematic, because there is a fundamental difference between political opinion and intrinsic biological traits such as sexuality. The law in no way protects one from consequences due to their political opinions, and it can be argued that it shouldn't. The same is not true for intrinsic traits like gender, sexuality or ethnicity.

I will bet that hundreds of times each year, whether or not a variance is issued is directly related to whether or not the person requesting it supported the elected official in the last election. That's not fair, but then no one is entitled to a variance. I do not like it. But it's not illegal, and its not going to be.

Yeah, except hundreds of times each year (lowballed, no doubt), those elected officials aren't stupid enough to get up on a platform and say what they're doing and why they're doing it. In this case, they were, so we get to discuss the problems with how they think and use their power. We can even condemn them for perceived abuses of it. And in this case, it looks pretty rotten.

The issuance of a zoning variance in Chicago really is a lot different than the situation in Boston.

The Boston mayor declared his intention to stymie Chick-fil-a's requests for business licenses and inspections because of the owner's bigotry. This is manipulation of the law to punish someone he doesn't like, and it's wrong.

The Chicago alderman announced he was denying a zoning variance for Chick-fil-a because of the owner's bigotry. This is a refusal to manipulate the law to reward someone he doesn't like, and he is exercising the powers of his office in exactly the way he's been elected to do. It's no less ethical than forbidding the construction of a motorcycle repair shop in the heart of a residential neighborhood.

A more true to form example of an ad hominem would be, say, "Your opinion is wrong because you're a bigot." or words to that effect. Not that anyone's said that here, of course.

Quote

Yes, from a moral and ethical standpoint we should absolutely have consequences for hateful speech. I'd prefer societal consequences, which is what is going on with Chick-fil-a, but sometimes you need the extra oomph that formal government action provides. We needed it in the 1960s and, unfortunately, it looks like we need it again.

The societal consequences of what went on with Chik-fil-a was, thus far, a day of record sales, a major showing of public support and sizable public backlash against what even some supporters of gay marriage think is a condemnation-worthy abuse of government power. So, good job, I suppose.

Anyway, I'll bow out of this one - I asked what I think are the most telling questions, and I've gotten answers that speak for themselves - while giving a link I think summarizes my view of most of both sides on this issue.

And since this came in while I was typing this, a couple last replies.

Quote

Your example is problematic, because there is a fundamental difference between political opinion and intrinsic biological traits such as sexuality. The law in no way protects one from consequences due to their political opinions, and it can be argued that it shouldn't. The same is not true for intrinsic traits like gender, sexuality or ethnicity.

Dangerous defense, and here's why. First, disapproval of certain sexual acts, even inclinations, may well be at least partly biological in basis. Second, the degree to which sexuality is wholly biological is disputed. (From my reading on this subject, it also depends on gender - my gay/bisexual friends have told me some interesting stories about the male/female LGBT cultural differences.) But let's say we grant your response entirely. You're still left with a problem.

A biological trait of sexuality != sexual acts. Your standard would make it an open question whether someone could or should be discriminated against owing to their sexual behavior, regardless of actual sexuality. In fact, for those guys running around opposing gay marriage for religious reasons, that's the formal, intellectual tradition: someone having same-sex attraction doesn't merit any kind of condemnation, at least no more than anyone who experiences any kind of temptation. Now, specific sexual acts? That's where the problem comes in, and that's where the argument would take place on that response - you can protect people with SSA while at the same time opposing people engaged in same-sex intercourse. Or hell, any kind of intercourse, since an act is an act.

Another problem - political opinions? Maybe not. Now, religious beliefs? Those typically see more protection. But really, you can just run roughshod over that too if you like and have the ability, so that may not be a concern.

Autistic Angel,

Quote

The Boston mayor declared his intention to stymie Chick-fil-a's requests for business licenses and inspections because of the owner's bigotry. This is manipulation of the law to punish someone he doesn't like, and it's wrong.

The Chicago alderman announced he was denying a zoning variance for Chick-fil-a because of the owner's bigotry. This is a refusal to manipulate the law to reward someone he doesn't like, and he is exercising the powers of his office in exactly the way he's been elected to do. It's no less ethical than forbidding the construction of a motorcycle repair shop in the heart of a residential neighborhood.

"A refusal to manipulate the law" is a silly way to frame it. I'd agree that it's no less ethical than forbidding the construction of a motorcycle repair shop in the heart of a residential neighborhood - purely because you didn't like his political opinions, whereas before it was okay. Again, I'll grant that it's entirely legal to do that, by the letter of the law, for all I know. I'll grant that it violates no formal ethical limits on the same terms. But yes, I think it's wrong and unethical for government officials to punish people for their political opinions like this.

I'm also not surprised, and think it's going to keep happening - on issues other than this. And eventually a lot of people who think this is a grand idea may well regret it.

This is an ad hominem. This is an insinuation about the author of the argument rather than the argument itself.

Yeah, that's not ad hom. Again, read the wiki entry. Read other definitions of ad hom if you like.

An ad hominem (Latin for "to the man"), short for argumentum ad hominem, is an attempt to negate the truth of a claim by pointing out a negative characteristic or belief of the person supporting it.[1]

At no point did I say or even imply, "Your arguments are wrong because you're a (whatever)". I said that you're communicating more than you consciously intend to. Call that what you like, but an ad hom it's not. Really, someone can flat out engage in namecalling and that's not an ad hom case unless someone says "your argument is wrong because you're (x)" or words to that effect. Again: "Your argument is wrong because you're a bigot."? Ad hom. "You're a bigot."? Not ad hom.

The societal consequences of what went on with Chik-fil-a was, thus far, a day of record sales, a major showing of public support and sizable public backlash against what even some supporters of gay marriage think is a condemnation-worthy abuse of government power. So, good job, I suppose.

Well, no. That's one day's consequence of one side of the action. I don't think you'll see Chick Fil A going 'HOLY SHIT WE ARE TAKING IT UP THE FIGURATIVE ASS BY PEOPLE NOT GOING TO OUR STORES EVERY DAY OTHER THAN THAT ONE DAY'. As a private company, they don't have to disclose their revenues nor do we have their stock values to look at to see how this is really affecting the company.

One day of 'record setting sales' does not mean jack shit in the grand scheme of Gay-Chicken-Sandwich-Gate.

But thus far? Yeah. 500k+ facebook likes, whatever that's worth. A considerable outpouring of public support. A world record setting sales day, from what headlines I've seen. People thinking the public officials are abusing their power, regardless of whether or not it's legal. It's data.

I don't think there's any way to cut that other than "a good day for Chik-fil-a and a bad day for people who called for a Chik-fil-a boycott". The long-term consequences may play out differently. Hey, maybe the Jim Henson company will go bankrupt owing to their decisions, for that matter. But right now, we can take a look at the data and make some qualified judgments.

But thus far? Yeah. 500k+ facebook likes, whatever that's worth. A considerable outpouring of public support. A world record setting sales day, from what headlines I've seen. People thinking the public officials are abusing their power, regardless of whether or not it's legal. It's data.

I don't think there's any way to cut that other than "a good day for Chik-fil-a and a bad day for people who called for a Chik-fil-a boycott". The long-term consequences may play out differently. Hey, maybe the Jim Henson company will go bankrupt owing to their decisions, for that matter. But right now, we can take a look at the data and make some qualified judgments.

You can't even say short term because we have no idea what the losses have been even over the last two weeks or so, nevermind that the LGBT community has been discouraging people from Chick-Fil-A for years before these last few weeks. We have no idea whether the gains of one day overcome the losses of days, weeks, months or years. You have a single data point provided by one party. You actually can't even fact check it. It's impossible to draw any rational conclusion.

Your example is problematic, because there is a fundamental difference between political opinion and intrinsic biological traits such as sexuality. The law in no way protects one from consequences due to their political opinions, and it can be argued that it shouldn't. The same is not true for intrinsic traits like gender, sexuality or ethnicity.

Dangerous defense, and here's why. First, disapproval of certain sexual acts, even inclinations, may well be at least partly biological in basis.

You could make the same argument for racial animosity being rooted in a biologically-ingrained xenophobia. We rightly reject such nonsense in an enlightened society.

Quote

Second, the degree to which sexuality is wholly biological is disputed.

It is intrinsic, whether biological, hormonal or genetic is immaterial. It is not chosen and cannot be changed.

Quote

A biological trait of sexuality != sexual acts. Your standard would make it an open question whether someone could or should be discriminated against owing to their sexual behavior, regardless of actual sexuality. In fact, for those guys running around opposing gay marriage for religious reasons, that's the formal, intellectual tradition: someone having same-sex attraction doesn't merit any kind of condemnation, at least no more than anyone who experiences any kind of temptation. Now, specific sexual acts? That's where the problem comes in, and that's where the argument would take place on that response - you can protect people with SSA while at the same time opposing people engaged in same-sex intercourse. Or hell, any kind of intercourse, since an act is an act.

"A refusal to manipulate the law" is a silly way to frame it. I'd agree that it's no less ethical than forbidding the construction of a motorcycle repair shop in the heart of a residential neighborhood - purely because you didn't like his political opinions, whereas before it was okay. Again, I'll grant that it's entirely legal to do that, by the letter of the law, for all I know.

No, you cannot open a motorcycle repair shop in the heart of a quiet residential neighborhood because it's against the law. Not a new law, invented in response to the would-be owner, but long-standing zoning regulations created to separate people's homes from loud machining, exhaust fumes, and chemical seepage. The standing answer is no, and any request to open an exception in the law places a heavy burden of proof on whoever is making the request.

Chick-fil-a is requesting a zoning variance in Chicago. They want to be exempted from existing law. Not an anti-Christian law, not an anti-Chick-fil-a law, not even an anti-discrimination law -- a law that delineates where certain business types may and may not be located. Such a decision falls entirely under the jurisdiction of the local alderman, and he can choose not to bend the rules for any reason he sees fit.

Quote from: VictorGrunn on August 02, 2012, 09:35:13 PM

I'm also not surprised, and think it's going to keep happening - on issues other than this. And eventually a lot of people who think this is a grand idea may well regret it.

Are you referring to how the Conservative state legislature in Mississippi has been passing all-new laws that apply exclusively to abortion clinics, inventing such hyper-specific regulations about available bathrooms and the size of janitor's closets that the clinics can't possibly be brought up to code?

Which do you think should be a greater source of regret: asking a fast food chain to find a legally viable place for their newest franchise, or denying women their Constitutionally protected rights?

I think picking one someone or bullying them - picking on them in school or at work, mocking and belittling them - because of their sexual attraction is reprehensible, and should be condemned, even punished. Granted, I think you can poke fun at times - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wkB4OzvILvY for example - but it's often pretty easy to tell the difference between fun and actual bullying. I despise it, and I think any decent person would condemn it. The same goes for fat people, shy people, and the rest. I think a lot of the past treatment of people on this front has been despicable.

But no, I can't get behind government officials deciding that if they dislike the political opinions of a given person or group, that they can be fired, or their business can be punished through the use of their power, etc. If we're doing that, let's flip right on back to the spoils system - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spoils_system - and make it official what we're doing. And I'd suggest that anyone who thinks the wind is at their back and that the future is theirs, be warned: even if the moral and ethical concepts of freedom of thought and opinion don't persuade you, the *recent* history books are filled to the brim with people who didn't foresee how the culture would change in 10-20 years, to say nothing of the longer view. Make the decision that the use of law to hammer on private citizens because of their political and social beliefs at your own peril.

And here it is, more replies.

gellar,

Quote

You can't even say short term because we have no idea what the losses have been even over the last two weeks or so,

What we can do is talk about the reports of that one day, the evidence we have, and qualify it properly when drawing conclusions. Really, intentionally or not, you're coming across as wanting to say that the public support, the lines wrapping around the block at Chik-fil-a locations, etc, isn't even a data point, much less a positive data point for Chik-fil-a. That's silly.

I mean, sure, if you have a poll taken the day (or even two weeks) before an election and it's showing Obama 70 Romney 30, technically Romney may well win because what matters is the actual vote - why, there can be a massive change in sentiment in the space of 24/2 weeks hours. I think if someone did that - if someone couldn't at least say, "Well, this looks like good news for Obama's election chances" - it's become evident they'd just rather bite their tongue off than concede the obvious.

Fireball1244,

Quote

You could make the same argument for racial animosity being rooted in a biologically-ingrained xenophobia. We rightly reject such nonsense in an enlightened society.

Insofar as we reject it, we reject it on the grounds that a trait being biological - even to the point of being beyond their control - does not in and of itself justify, much less sanctify it. You can see where this complicates matters.

Quote

It is intrinsic, whether biological, hormonal or genetic is immaterial. It is not chosen and cannot be changed.

Again, disputed - and this isn't a very clear-cut issue. The very existence of bisexuals and the supposed validity of the Kinsey scale complicates matters. And this stands in tension with your previous statement - do biologically-determined/influenced dispositions become justified due to their biological rooting? Be careful.

Note that this doesn't get into the issue of "reparative therapy" and all that crap, not directly anyway.

Also note, "cannot be changed" is suicidal on this issue. We live in an era of gene therapy, hormonal therapy, and more. What you're saying "cannot be changed", even if it has the biological/hormonal rooting you say it does, may well be able to be changed in time, and not much time at that. And that's before recognizing the gulf between the inclination and the act itself, as below.

Quote

This has nothing to do with sex.

And I'm warning you, it has everything to do with sex for a lot of people, certainly a lot of religions. Everything from the specific biblical denunciations (they target act, not inclination) to the doctrines (see: Catechism of the RCC, the various protestant statements) turn on the sexual acts rather than the sexual attraction. (The RCC will say the inclination is disordered, but occupies the same 'disorder' as any other inclination to sin, which is regarded as nigh universal.) Not exclusively - you can find plenty of guys who are against "TEH GAYS" rather than, say, "sodomy". But I'm telling you what the arguments are in many circles, and which ones are probably/possibly going to get prominent as time marches on. They already are prominent in the areas I've referenced.

Autistic Angel,

Quote

Such a decision falls entirely under the jurisdiction of the local alderman, and he can choose not to bend the rules for any reason he sees fit.

Sure can. And he decided to do so because he didn't like the political opinions of a given person in charge of a business. Pretty reprehensible. Joe Paterno redux - he followed the letter of the law, apparently. Even if he did, it's a pretty crappy, condemnation-worthy act on his part, though of course not nearly in magnitude. (It's a fucking place that sells delicious chicken, not a case of child molestation.)

You're making a bad play here. If the guy said, "Well, I've SUDDENLY decided that Chik-fil-a would be too noisy and smelly for this area, and thus I am siding against them on this one - wink wink" we'd be able to play the game where his decision was totally within his rights and it had nothing to do with the COO's stance and people are misunderstanding things. But nope, we're dealing with guys stating why they're making the decisions they are, and the reason is "I dislike that political opinion!" Saying "well he's legally capable of doing that" isn't much of a defense.

Quote

Which do you think should be a greater source of regret: asking a fast food chain to find a legally viable place for their newest franchise, or denying women their Constitutionally protected rights?

Can I find it reprehensible for a political official to use his powers to punish people and businesses for the crime of expressing political opinions they disapprove of, *AND* reject attacks on people's constitutional rights in another context? Is that allowed? I haven't seen the rule book.

Also, can I point out that if violating Constitutional rights and/or free speech is justified, it opens the door to being violated more in the future, including by those the original justifiers may disagree with themselves? Can I at all gesture towards the dangers of a scorched-earth policy for dealing with political dissent? Can I do so *even if it's taken place at multiple points on the political spectrum*?

Such a decision falls entirely under the jurisdiction of the local alderman, and he can choose not to bend the rules for any reason he sees fit.

Sure can. And he decided to do so because he didn't like the political opinions of a given person in charge of a business. Pretty reprehensible.

I just want to be certain you understand that when you say "decided to do so," you mean "decided to uphold the law."

Imagine the Dillon Panthers win a football game against the Dunston Valley Cardinals. Dunston then files a grievance with the athletics board and asks to have the victory overturned, and when the board asks why they should do that, the coach explains that Dillon cheated by fielding black players. Refusing their motion is not pretty reprehensible.

A man is pulled over for speeding on a quiet stretch of highway. He pleads with the officer to let him go with a warning, and when asked why he should be let off the hook, the driver explains he's late for his Klan meeting. Issuing him a speeding ticket is not pretty reprehensible.

Now, a fast food chain is asking to open a new location in an urban center where they are not legally allowed to operate. The city asked them to explain why they should be exempted from standing ordinance, and they've effectively replied, "Our business will generate more economic activity, new tax revenue, and help us finance our long-term goal of persecuting gay people!"

If the pursuit of bigotry becomes sufficient grounds to grant immunity from inconvenient laws, we might as well not have laws at all.

Quote from: VictorGrunn on August 02, 2012, 11:14:39 PM

You're making a bad play here. If the guy said, "Well, I've SUDDENLY decided that Chik-fil-a would be too noisy and smelly for this area, and thus I am siding against them on this one - wink wink" we'd be able to play the game where his decision was totally within his rights and it had nothing to do with the COO's stance and people are misunderstanding things. But nope, we're dealing with guys stating why they're making the decisions they are, and the reason is "I dislike that political opinion!" Saying "well he's legally capable of doing that" isn't much of a defense.

For clarity, I'm saying he's legally obligated to do that. The moral imperative is just icing.

Quote from: VictorGrunn on August 02, 2012, 11:14:39 PM

Quote

Which do you think should be a greater source of regret: asking a fast food chain to find a legally viable place for their newest franchise, or denying women their Constitutionally protected rights?

Can I find it reprehensible for a political official to use his powers to punish people and businesses for the crime of expressing political opinions they disapprove of, *AND* reject attacks on people's constitutional rights in another context? Is that allowed? I haven't seen the rule book.

I'm interested if your objections here are proportional. It should think that if following existing law to defend defend civil liberties is troubling, then years of brainstorming new laws to strip away Constitutionally protected rights would be downright enraging, yes?

Quote from: VictorGrunn on August 02, 2012, 11:14:39 PM

Also, can I point out that if violating Constitutional rights and/or free speech is justified, it opens the door to being violated more in the future, including by those the original justifiers may disagree with themselves? Can I at all gesture towards the dangers of a scorched-earth policy for dealing with political dissent? Can I do so *even if it's taken place at multiple points on the political spectrum*?

I don't know. I'm not acquainted with any of the Republican legislators in Mississippi, Kansas, or Virginia, but if I do encounter anyone who thinks violating constitutional rights is a good idea, I'll ask them.

The owner said nothing bigoted, but rather that he supported a biblical definition of marriage.

Gay hatemongers twist his words and lie like they often do (see NC marriage ammendment) and cause a firestorm.

Liberal politicians citing their amazing tolerance are completely intolerant about a company with different views and that has no history of discriminating against anyone. Irony is lost on them. So is the 1st ammendment. Yay facism!

I think people here fundamentally have a misunderstanding of the first amendment. Sure, you can say/believe whatever the fuck you want, but I (and anyone else) can sure as shit judge you and make your life more difficult for saying it.

For example, if you are against gay marriage, I would honestly like you to go fuck yourself. See, free speech works both ways!

Christians are vociferously opposed to gay rights and statistically very likely to self-identify as Conservative. This controversy, including "Chick-fil-a Appreciation Day," has been heavily promoted through Conservative channels like Fox News and a battery of national talk radio shows.

But it's always possible there's, like, one guy who only listens to Top 40 stations and is quietly wondering why the line for his daily lunch stop was suddenly ninety minutes long. That's why the caption doesn't read, "You'd never see a photo showing no one except independently verified Christians lined up...."

Quote from: corruptrelic on August 03, 2012, 04:06:55 PM

The few news stories I read on it showed people coming out in support of "free speech" with no mention of religion in it.

Yes, and the people who still hammer the issue of Barack Obama's birth certificate and suspect him of secret Muslim affiliations are very good about never mentioning race. We can still see the dog whistles.

Christians are vociferously opposed to gay rights and statistically very likely to self-identify as Conservative. This controversy, including "Chick-fil-a Appreciation Day," has been heavily promoted through Conservative channels like Fox News and a battery of national talk radio shows.

But it's always possible there's, like, one guy who only listens to Top 40 stations and is quietly wondering why the line for his daily lunch stop was suddenly ninety minutes long. That's why the caption doesn't read, "You'd never see a photo showing no one except independently verified Christians lined up...."

Quote from: corruptrelic on August 03, 2012, 04:06:55 PM

The few news stories I read on it showed people coming out in support of "free speech" with no mention of religion in it.

Yes, and the people who still hammer the issue of Barack Obama's birth certificate and suspect him of secret Muslim affiliations are very good about never mentioning race. We can still see the dog whistles.

-Autistic Angel

Evangelical Christians. Some other sects actually support gay rights and marriage.

I think people here fundamentally have a misunderstanding of the first amendment. Sure, you can say/believe whatever the fuck you want, but I (and anyone else) can sure as shit judge you and make your life more difficult for saying it.

For example, if you are against gay marriage, I would honestly like you to go fuck yourself. See, free speech works both ways!

This, oh so much this. The first amendment just states that you have the freedom to say something, not that there are no consequences for saying it.

Evangelical Christians. Some other sects actually support gay rights and marriage.

Good point. Christians are no more homogenous than Muslims or Jews, and it was incorrect for me to label them so broadly.

Quote from: Calavera on August 03, 2012, 08:04:28 PM

Quote from: gellar on August 03, 2012, 04:51:06 PM

I think people here fundamentally have a misunderstanding of the first amendment. Sure, you can say/believe whatever the fuck you want, but I (and anyone else) can sure as shit judge you and make your life more difficult for saying it.

This, oh so much this. The first amendment just states that you have the freedom to say something, not that there are no consequences for saying it.

Right: it primarily protects against legal consequences, ensuring the government cannot exact retribution against people who peaceably speak out against those in power. That's why Boston's threat to deny Chick-fil-a its proper permits is an abuse of power and Chicago's decision to honor existing zoning regulations is not.

At least Conservatives have finally decided that First Amendment rights are worth worrying about. I wonder how they would have reacted if the Obama administration decided to follow their predecessors' lead and restrict all Chick-fil-a consumption to authorized "Free Speech zones."

Victor, I'm getting tired of your lecturing tone. You are talking down to everyone else in this thread. Take your superior attitude and shove it.

LOL! Is this what happens when someone on the right side of an issue out debates the usual dog pile on the left side of the debate? I've never seen that before, and am quite enjoying his very logical, well reasoned replies to those attacking his position. Hats off to Victor!

Victor, I'm getting tired of your lecturing tone. You are talking down to everyone else in this thread. Take your superior attitude and shove it.

LOL! Is this what happens when someone on the right side of an issue out debates the usual dog pile on the left side of the debate? I've never seen that before, and am quite enjoying his very logical, well reasoned replies to those attacking his position. Hats off to Victor!

Yeah I had a problem with Fireball on this one too, I re-read Victor's posts and didn't see him "talking down or lecturing" anyone. He was debating and discussing the issue, he wasn't even getting heated or controversial. Fireball's response is a typical pissed off emotional response that occures when your emotions are high.

Logged

" And they are a strong and frightening force, impervious to, and immunized against, the feeble lance of mere reason." Isaac Asimov

Victor, I'm getting tired of your lecturing tone. You are talking down to everyone else in this thread. Take your superior attitude and shove it.

LOL! Is this what happens when someone on the right side of an issue out debates the usual dog pile on the left side of the debate? I've never seen that before, and am quite enjoying his very logical, well reasoned replies to those attacking his position. Hats off to Victor!

Yeah I had a problem with Fireball on this one too, I re-read Victor's posts and didn't see him "talking down or lecturing" anyone. He was debating and discussing the issue, he wasn't even getting heated or controversial. Fireball's response is a typical pissed off emotional response that occures when your emotions are high.

I want to clarify that I dont think Victor was on the right side of the debate, just that he wasn't talking down or lecturing.

Logged

" And they are a strong and frightening force, impervious to, and immunized against, the feeble lance of mere reason." Isaac Asimov

What bothered me about Victor's posts was the combination of ignoring what other people were saying so he could keep regurgitating tired, discredited canards, while at the same time announcing that he wasn't going to listen any responses to his last set of unfounded assertions because he was cutting and running from the thread.

I had written most of a response to his points when I noticed his earlier "I'm outta here" statement, and, frankly, that pissed me off. That, to me, is lecturing -- he's going to assert his point of view, and then flee before having to support any of his inane points. It's a lousy way to treat the other people in the thread who were actually trying to have a discussion.

Anyone who pulls the "I'm leaving the thread but now I'm going to take the last word" maneuver is behaving like an arrogant jerk, in my opinion.

Fast food company, Chick-fil-A, have confirmed that they will no longer fund anti-equal marriage groups, and sent a statement of respect for people of all sexual orientations.

Back in July, Dan Cathy, COO of Chick-Fil-A said that the company were against equal marriage rights for gay people. He told the Baptist Press that the company was “guilty as charged”, when asked about its perceived opposition to equal marriage.

Joe Moreno, an alderman who represents Chicago’s Logan Square neighbourhood, had previously said he would use his aldermanic privilege to block the restaurant’s permit. This meant city council members would have to defer to aldermen on local matters.

The Civil Rights Agenda today confirmed, in a press release, that Alderman Moreno, had finished negotiations with Chick-fil-A, and that the company had agreed to stop funding charities with a political agenda, including those opposed to equal marriage.